"Your surname isn't your own it's your fathers"

I read a lot of threads on here that say basically "it's not your own name anyway its your fathers, so why don't you drop it and take your husbands"

But by that argument my husbands name isn't his own, it's HIS fathers. So if I'm choosing between my father's name, or my father-in-law's name of course my preference is for my father! He's my family, my dad!

If i'm choosing between my name or husbands name then of course my preference is for my name.

It's not comparing like-for-like to say my names my dads, but DH's name is his.

Does anyone know why people use this stupid argument because it does my head it!

i inherited this name from my father, that is true. but the fact that it is preceeded by 'booyhoo' means that booyhoo is the owner of the name until I decide to change it for another (which i may never do). if i do, i will then own which ever name i decide to attach to booyhoo.

I meet quite a lot of people who are like that I changed my name, including people who knew me when I was younger. I have occasionally used the father's name argument usually without the follow up "so I chose the name of the man who was actually at the wedding". My mum had already changed her name to her mother's maiden name. Name schmame.

I think each to his own. However, I did feel a bit irritated at being acsused of being unfeminist when I changed to my husbands name (for purely practical reasons) by people who had chosen to keep their father's- which is all part of the same patriarchal system.

I changed because my original surname had an odd spelling and it was irritating to have to point this out to everyone. However, I haven't adopted DH's christian name, something several envelope addressers would do well to note

I'm not sure of the thinking behind that argument for the people that use it.

I suppose the giving of fathers' names to their children could be seen as a marker of ownership - in past times children were the property of fathers as well as wives weren't they? So in that sense the fact you were once given a name by your father to mark his ownership of you could be seen as no different from being given a name by your husband to mark his ownership of you.

I think particularly if you haven't had a good relationship with your father then it might seem like a bit of a relief to get away from his name, and that argument would seem quite supportive.

Not really my point of view though. I see the uneven nature of just one half of the couple giving up a name and breaking the narrative of their life (in a small way) to be the problematic aspect of it.

It's a weak argument, at best, but one that wouldn't be put forward at all if women who have chosen to change their name weren't criticised for blindly doing so without thought and against all reason. I had several reasons for wanting to ditch my maiden name, and several reasons for wanting to take my married name. Almost 20 years down the line I would probably have taken the opportunity to take my mothers maiden name which is nicer than my married name and a million times better than my bloody awful maiden name. However it's a choice I made at the time, a considered choice and when people infer that I must be a bit stupid or unthinking or I am anti-feminist then it is almost so annoying that I might trot out some ridiculous counter argument. I haven't got to that point yet but I've been close.

It's not my father's name though, is it? He didn't exactly make it up himself. He got it when he was born, same as my brothers, my fiancé and I did. Only thing is that they all get to keep theirs, but mine is apparently only temporary until I get passed on.